So, if she had gotten off the bike and been walking when the driver of the SUV struck her, who would have been cited?
If she had been riding in the street, would the accident have been averted?

I won't argue that her citation is warranted, but, that the drive was not cited makes no sense to me. That drive would have struck anything in his/her path, a pedestrian, cyclist, automobile, whatever.
The drive certainly shares (if not owns) responsibility for this accident.

So, if she had gotten off the bike and been walking when the driver of the SUV struck her, who would have been cited?
If she had been riding in the street, would the accident have been averted?...

Travelling at a walking pace, she would not have struck/been struck by the SUV and there would be no citation for either party.
And of course this wouldn't have happened if she were riding on the roadway, as the law required.
Not only was she moving at vehicular speed where no vehicle should be, but the video shows she was approaching the vehicle from the driver's right-hand (i.e. wrong) side, while his attention would properly be primarily to his left, after he had observed that the sidewalk was clear of pedestrians.
We have only the word of the cyclist (the accused offender) that the driver didn't stop before crossing the sidewalk and that he crossed "in a hurry", whatever that means.

Travelling at a walking pace, she would not have struck/been struck by the SUV and there would be no citation for either party.
And of course this wouldn't have happened if she were riding on the roadway, as the law required.
Not only was she moving at vehicular speed where no vehicle should be, but the video shows she was approaching the vehicle from the driver's right-hand (i.e. wrong) side, while his attention would properly be primarily to his left, after he had observed that the sidewalk was clear of pedestrians.
We have only the word of the cyclist (the accused offender) that the driver didn't stop before crossing the sidewalk and that he crossed "in a hurry", whatever that means.

I take it that you did not bother looking at the street view link provided for you before you made this assuming post.

Note the reasonable lines of sight the motorist should have had if they stopped before the sidewalk as required by law. No reason not to see the cyclist if driving safely. With that sidewalk set back, what motor traffic did the motorist need to look for before crossing the sidewalk to cue up to enter the roadway?

Travelling at a walking pace, she would not have struck/been struck by the SUV and there would be no citation for either party.???
We have only the word of the cyclist (the accused offender) that the driver didn't stop before crossing the sidewalk and that he crossed "in a hurry", whatever that means.

It means the driver was using the extra 17 feet of "entrance" after the sidewalk to accelerate onto a very narrow / no bike lane . street. I think of myself as a combat veteran on a bike and I would have been on the sidewalk, but for the fact I'd never have stepped one foot in Denver County. I do appreciate those of you with psychic abilities filling in all the details for us, I'm sure it's exhausting work.

when crosswalks are used as launching pads to enter traffic the driver sees nothing but where they're going.

Last edited by Rx Rider; 04-21-12 at 10:12 PM.
Reason: fortunately most driver don't do that

I'm with the cops in terms of them being justified in handing the cyclist a ticket. Sophie Hoad, the cyclist in this case said: "For me, I feel it's safer to ride my bike on the sidewalk instead of trying to keep up with traffic". Well, she's wrong: studies have shown that it's at least 1.8 times more dangerous for a cyclist to ride on the sidewalk (the precise risk depending on the specifics), because of how sidewalks interact with driveways and intersections. I believe wrong-way riding on the sidewalk works out to be about 6 times more dangerous than riding in the road - something that Sophie might have profited from knowing. Maybe Sophie should have learned the real risks, and what the law requires of cyclists and what it doesn't BEFORE she decided to take a vehicle out on the streets. The law requires cyclists to operate on the road, but it does not require that they 'keep up' with motor vehicles. Motorists have brakes and steering wheels specifically designed to help them avoid hitting slower-moving vehicles (and these tools help motorists do just that, as long as those other vehicles are operating where they should be - i.e. visibly and safely on the road) - it's not as if cars are uncontrollable chunks of metal.

As for the driver, he should have got a ticket too. The problem is, the cyclist was clearly in the wrong - since she had no idea that cycling on the sidewalk was illegal, she probably even admitted it to the cops. Since the driver was driving in a place he was supposed to be, it's a lot harder proving the driver was in the wrong too. For that, the police would need him to admit that he didn't stop before the curb.

I'm with the cops in terms of them being justified in handing the cyclist a ticket. Sophie Hoad, the cyclist in this case said: "For me, I feel it's safer to ride my bike on the sidewalk instead of trying to keep up with traffic". Well, she's wrong: it's between 2 and 12 times more dangerous for a cyclist to ride on the sidewalk (the risk depending on the specifics), precisely because of how sidewalks interact with driveways and intersections. Maybe Sophie should have learned what the law requires of cyclists and what it doesn't BEFORE she decided to take a vehicle out on the streets. The law requires cyclists to operate on the road, but it does not require that they 'keep up' with motor vehicles. Motorists have brakes and steering wheels specifically designed to help them avoid hitting other vehicles (and these tools help motorists do just that, as long as those other vehicles are operating where they should be - i.e. visibly and safely on the road) - it's not as if cars are uncontrollable chunks of metal.

As for the driver, he should have got a ticket too. The problem is, the cyclist was clearly in the wrong - since she had no idea that cycling on the sidewalk was illegal, she probably even admitted it to the cops. It's a lot harder proving the driver was in the wrong too.

There's the perception issue, many cyclists do not feel comfortable riding in the midst of traffic, especially when having to deal high traffic volumes and with many motorists' mood swings and ignorance of a cyclist's road rights, even when there is a minimum standard cycling infrastructure in place.

I've watched many local cyclists opt out of some of our local cycling infrastructure for the sidewalk due to their unease with fast close passing motor vehicles.

I still don't see enough info to tell me what exactly happened, that is the entire situation. Was she salmoning on the sidewalk, that happens a lot. But by the same token:

Quote:

Hoad was on her way to art class on Monday around 8 a.m. She was biking on the sidewalk, heading west on Asbury Avenue toward University Boulevard, when she says an SUV leaving a parking lot crossed the sidewalk in a hurry.

Sounds like the SUV was aggressively leaving and perhaps the driver had his head turned in one direction looking primarily for a clear to get on the road. If he didn't look both ways, he might've hit a pedestrian just the same ? But from the read and not seeing it 1st hand, there's room for anyone to speculate what exactly happened. Anyway, blind areas, all parties should recognize that potential and should be practically at a walking speed anyway.

The sign that was there to keep bikes off the sidewalk, perhaps the blind areas are the reason that bikes are prohibited. And in that case, the right citations were handed out.

The sign that was there to keep bikes off the sidewalk, perhaps the blind areas are the reason that bikes are prohibited. And in that case, the right citations were handed out.

There are no signs in the area. The pictures of no bicycles on sidewalk sign look like they are from the area around E Colfax, which is pretty much the only location I've seen them.

The signs are redundant as sidewalk riding is prohibited in all of the city and county of Denver, unless you are riding less than 6mph and do not cross a driveway. Cops and newspaper delivery people are excepted.

There's the perception issue, many cyclists do not feel comfortable riding in the midst of traffic, especially when having to deal high traffic volumes and with many motorists' mood swings and ignorance of a cyclist's road rights, even when there is a minimum standard cycling infrastructure in place.

I've watched many local cyclists opt out of some of our local cycling infrastructure for the sidewalk due to their unease with fast close passing motor vehicles.

I agree that perception is a serious problem. But the perception has to be changed in order for things to get better. I think it's a mistake to cater to a dangerous perception.

Sounds like the SUV was aggressively leaving and perhaps the driver had his head turned in one direction looking primarily for a clear to get on the road. If he didn't look both ways, he might've hit a pedestrian just the same ?

bingo, I ended up on hood of a car as a ped crossing the street because the car wanting to turn never looked right before turning right.
I knew she was going to hit me before she even moved. luckily I jumped before the cage would have hit me and just ended up lying on the hood of the car. she stopped immediately, apologized about a million times. . .
but I digest, they both could have dun better, the biker has to listen for SUV motors, the car needs to stop cell phoning.
you'd think the university would make bike route information available to students, because that street is horrible.

nice of the pd to wait until she woke up before issuing a summons to appear in court.

It's apples to oranges comparing chances and risks of sidewalk riding vs road. For one, accidents on the road might be fewer but certainly more fatal.

You're assuming that sidewalk riders only collide with pedestrians, signposts or garbage bins. But most accidents happening to sidewalk riders occur on the road at an intersection - and they are just as often fatal as those that happen to road cyclists, if not more so.

You're assuming that sidewalk riders only collide with pedestrians, signposts or garbage bins. But most accidents happening to sidewalk riders occur on the road at an intersection - and they are just as often fatal as those that happen to road cyclists, if not more so.

Can you explain why? If one is crossing the road when not supposed to than it's their fault, just as it would be if pedestrian did that.

When riding on the road one has much less command over safety: you're moving much slower forcing others to pass you (passing is one of the most dangerous maneuvers), tiny(less visible), and with little defined path (less predictable). Just few of the reasons why some jurisdictions forbid cyclists to turn left (EDIT:OK...it appears I'm wrong about turning left being prohibited)

Can you explain why? If one is crossing the road when not supposed to than it's their fault, just as it would be if pedestrian did that.

When riding on the road one has much less command over safety: you're moving much slower forcing others to pass you (passing is one of the most dangerous maneuvers), tiny(less visible), and with little defined path (less predictable). Just few of the reasons why some jurisdictions forbid cyclists to turn left.

Huh? I've never heard that. Name some jurisdictions that "forbid" cyclists from turning left. What are they suppose to do, dismount and walk across the street?

It's apples to oranges comparing chances and risks of sidewalk riding vs road. For one, accidents on the road might be fewer but certainly more fatal.

As others have mentioned a lot of the on road accidents occur when sidewalk riders get to intersections. Most of them continue along as if they were on a bikepath without the slightest look or change of speed of any kind.

I did see one last month that got off and wlaked his bike across in the crosswalk. Quite noteworthy as such are so rare.

Why do I think that even IF Hoad had been out in the travel lane that she would have still been hit by the SUV, and that the driver of the SUV still wouldn't have been issued a ticket?

I'll take the bait...

Because you have difficulty ever admitting that the police are just there to do their job and, for the most part, attempt to do that job in an unbiased manner. Because you think the police are wrong in every thread where I've ever replied to your posts and that the cyclist and/or motorist was right. This leads me to believe that you are incapable of viewing police action objectively. You seem to be a great example of what Lt. Col. Grossman aptly descibed as a sheep.

Is it just me ? But it seems that the tolerance for sidewalk riding is relative to how old you are. Nobody has a problem with it when it's an elementary school aged child, but late teen and older and it's a citable offense. This 20 yr old woman, college aged chubby and still holding onto her childhood baby fat, and she should be riding on the street ? Anyone take a good look at what's riding & wandering around on college campuses for girls these days ? I mean, I have a niece who is a couple of years younger, she can be rather awkward and clumsy herself. Would my brother want her riding out in the busy streets ? Well apparently it's the proverbial mother bird pushing the babies out of the nest, fly or crash & burn ? Just me, but I've always been that the motorist really has the obligation to really be extra careful. About the only way I'd see it otherwise is the radical punk that rides with wreckless abandon. I'm sure there are other case by case instances that are inexcusable, but I don't see this gal as the type that's weaving thru pedestrians on the sidewalk on a bmx and doing jumpsup against walls or sliding down handrails being a public nuissance ? Sorry if I come across with no love or sympathy for the beanie wearing, skateboard punk on a bmx that's defacing public property ? They need to be protected too as an endangered species ? :-)

the parking lot the SUV left from is slightly elevated and hidden from view, which makes the sidewalk hidden as well. the street is narrow and busy. those involved could have done better but the situation is not black and white.
sidewalks have long been launching pads for cars and conjested streets worry the less than average cyclist. put the two together and . . .
I'm a little bitter about the pickup driver that hit the kid in the crosswalk, this is black and white, you're suppose to look for people in that situation! schools preach crosswalk usage for a reason. but then I call my town Fort Dicks for a reason.

If the sidewalk was hidden from view, it is possible that the driver came out of the parking lot slowly and the cyclist was riding fast. I'm speculating of course, but those details are omitted. They say speed kills, and maybe the cyclist was traveling too fast?

Wrt the 11yo girl that got hit twice, wow my heart goes out. I didn't fully grasp it though. Was she crossing the road and then the light went green, and no car was waiting at the intersection but came was already traveling at speed and then knocked her? And the Prius was also traveling at speed and then knocked her from the other direction? I would suspect the light was green for some time for the cars to be traveling at higher speeds. Someone please correct me.

If the sidewalk was hidden from view, it is possible that the driver came out of the parking lot slowly and the cyclist was riding fast. I'm speculating of course, but those details are omitted. They say speed kills, and maybe the cyclist was traveling too fast?

Travelling at a walking pace, she would not have struck/been struck by the SUV and there would be no citation for either party.
And of course this wouldn't have happened if she were riding on the roadway, as the law required.
Not only was she moving at vehicular speed where no vehicle should be, but the video shows she was approaching the vehicle from the driver's right-hand (i.e. wrong) side, while his attention would properly be primarily to his left, after he had observed that the sidewalk was clear of pedestrians.
We have only the word of the cyclist (the accused offender) that the driver didn't stop before crossing the sidewalk and that he crossed "in a hurry", whatever that means.

I take it that you did not bother looking at the street view link provided for you before you made this assuming post.

Note the reasonable lines of sight the motorist should have had if they stopped before the sidewalk as required by law. No reason not to see the cyclist if driving safely. With that sidewalk set back, what motor traffic did the motorist need to look for before crossing the sidewalk to cue up to enter the roadway?